Sumba Energy from Waste Desk Study Report

SUMBA ICONIC ISLAND REPORTS OCTOBER 2013 OCTOBER Foundation Fact Frederiks Bart Report Study Desk Waste from Sumba Energy

Sumba energy from waste Desk study report

Prepared for HIVOS

Project no: 253.ID.007

Author: Bart Frederiks

Date: October 2013

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

1.1 BACKGROUND 1 1.2 OBJECTIVES 1 1.3 METHODOLOGY 2 2 PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF ENERGY CONCEPTS 3

2.1 REVIEW OF LITERATURE 3 2.1.1 Resources 3 2.1.2 Supply opportunities 4 2.2 OVERVIEW OF APPLICABLE CONCEPTS 5 2.3 SELECTION OF CONCEPTS FOR FURTHER ASSESSMENT 6 3 ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ENERGY CONCEPTS 8

3.1 COCONUT SHELL 8 3.2 CANDLE NUT SHELL 10 3.3 CORN COBS 11 3.4 RICE HUSK 12 3.5 CASHEW WASTE 14 3.5.1 Cashew apple 14 3.5.2 Cashew shell 14 3.6 BIOGAS IN EXISTING SMALL DIESEL ENGINES 14 3.7 WASTE VEGETABLE OIL 15 3.8 URBAN WASTE 15 3.9 MARKET WASTE 16 3.10 BAMBOO 17 4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 18

4.1 CONCLUSIONS 18 4.2 RECOMMENDATIONS 19

References

Annex: Local consultant field reports

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Background Within the context of the “Iconic Island” project, Dutch NGO Hivos has set a target to achieve a 100% renewable energy supply on the Indonesian island of Sumba. In order to reach this target, the utilization of liquid bio-fuels and biomass is crucial. From earlier studies it was concluded that use of bio-energy would play an important role in replacing fossil fuel in ‘back up and spinning reserve’ diesel generators that constitute an essential part of the RE power systems on the island. Also in isolated areas without grid connection or other renewable energy potential, the utilization of bioenergy could play a role in the provision of electricity. Finally, biofuels could replace fossil fuels currently used in daily means of transport (cars, motorcycles and boats).

Since the start of the project, several studies have been carried out, characterising the energy demand and supply on Sumba, and assessing the potential of different renewable energy sources:  Winrock International assessed a range of renewable energy resources, including hydro, PV, wind, (small) biogas and biofuel.  KEMA carried out a study on grid-based renewable energy supply, producing several scenarios with different renewable energy sources.  A study by Jacqueline Vel and Respati Nugrohowardhani on bioenergy resources other than manure resulted in an extensive overview of potential crops and crop residues that could be used for bioenergy production.  A household biogas study was carried out by Sundar Bajgain of SNV, assessing the potential and constraints of small biogas for households.

FACT Foundation was commissioned to assess the practical potential of producing energy from selected organic waste streams. The study aims to assess and rank several waste streams as to their suitability to achieve the objectives of the ‘Iconic Island’ concept at Sumba. The assessment is split in two parts: 1. A desk study to develop a more fact based research proposal. All relevant options will be assessed, and based on qualitative (and where possible quantitative) criteria and the preference of Hivos, the 3-5 most promising options will be selected for further assessment. 2. Field research in Sumba. During the research, the technical, organisational and economic aspects of the selected options will be assessed and case studies / project concept notes will be prepared.

This report is the result of the first phase. It describes the desk study that was carried out in cooperation with Mr. Petrus Pandanga, a local consultant from Sumba. Based on the outcome of this report, a decision will be made with Hivos on how to proceed in the second phase.

1.2 Objectives The objective of the desk study phase is to make a selection of potentially interesting waste-to- energy concepts that can be assessed further in a field research phase.

Key questions are i) which of the options are relevant for Sumba in the first place; and ii) which of the relevant options have the largest (technical / economic) potential for implementation, with respect to resource availability, conversion technologies and the nature of energy needs (electricity / mechanical energy / fuels; decentralised or centralised).

1.3 Methodology The desk study has been carried out as follows: 1. First, a review has been made of earlier studies carried out (mentioned above) in order to determine the energy and resource context on Sumba. Also, some external experts were consulted. This resulted in a “long list” of potentially applicable energy concepts. 2. Together with Hivos staff in the Netherlands, a “short list” of concepts was selected for further investigation. The selection was based on the views and experience of Hivos practical issues. 3. A local consultant on Sumba was contracted to gather further information related to the concepts in the “short list’. Based on this information, calculations were made of the technical and practical potential, as well as first estimates the production costs. 4. Based on the outcome of the assessments, a recommendation was made on the concepts that could be pursued further in a field mission.

2 PRELIMINARY SELECTION OF ENERGY CONCEPTS

2.1 Review of literature

2.1.1 Resources Resources discussed in previous studies The presence of the following biomass feedstocks was indicated in earlier studies conducted within the Iconic Island project: 1. Coconut shells [1]: potential resource for gasification (on/off grid). There is no trade yet, and limited utilisation. 2. Kemiri shells [1]: potential resource for gasification (on/off grid). There is apparently some trading in this resource at limited prices (approx 20 USD/t off-farm). 3. Corn cob [1]: potential resource for gasification (on/off grid). There is no trade but occasional utilisation as a last resort for replacing fuelwood. 5. Sugar cane bagasse [1]: not yet existing but sugar production is being developed on Sumba. For large scale on-grid production using conventional CHP (steam cycle). Not available throughout the year. 6. Cashew apple [1]: potential resource for bioethanol production. There is no trade in apples, it is mainly waste. Seasonal availability, high water content and quick degradation of the fruit make large centralised production difficult. 7. Rice husk [1]: conditions on Sumba were indicated to be less suitable, especially because of the seasonality of supply, the dispersion of the fields, and alternative uses of rice mill waste (animal feed). 8. Animal dung [2]: potential resource for biogas (small scale off-grid, possibly as diesel replacement in existing diesels). Available in richer households (limited amounts) and village stables; larges herds are grazing. Might compete with household biogas initiatives being developed on Sumba.

Resources not yet discussed in previous studies The following biomass feedstocks have not yet been included in the earlier studies but might be available on Sumba: 1. Cashew nut hull: potential feedstock for gasification. Unknown if this is available (centrally). 2. Waste vegetable oil: potential feedstock for biodiesel. Might be available from resorts, restaurants. 3. Market waste: potential feedstock for biogas (on/off grid). It can be used as co-substrate in dung-based biogas systems. Can be combined with production of organic fertiliser (compost). 4. Hotel kitchen waste: potential feedstock for biogas (local for kitchen cooking or diesel replacement; when collected for on/off grid electricity). 5. Organic fraction in MSW: feedstock for biogas (on/off grid). Can be combined with production of organic fertiliser (compost).

2.1.2 Supply opportunities On-grid electricity Several on-grid supply options were assessed by KEMA [4]. Main conclusions relevant to bioenergy:

1. There are considerable wind/hydro resources that have very low costs (5-10 USc/kWh); it will be difficult for bioenergy options (typically >15 USc/kWh) to compete with this. 2. There may be possibilities for biogas or producer gas as co-fuel in grid-connected diesel backups, which would reduce (bio)diesel requirements. 3. When storage hydro is not considered, larger biomass installations (biogas, gasification) could be an option.

Sugar cane bagasse has the disadvantage of not being available throughout the year. This could be overcome with alternative fuels during the off-season (as is being done on Mauritius, with coal) but the required amounts would be enormous.

Current grid-connected diesel plants are listed in [6]. Most sets are in the range of 250-500 kVA, with a small number of larger units (upto 880 kW). Average utilisation rates range from about 2000-5000 h/a (full load equivalent). Average fuel consumption is reported at 3.45 kWh/l diesel1. Average production costs at medium voltage level is 0.27 USD/kWh, of which 75% (0.20 USD/kWh) is diesel cost. However, a price level of 4500 RS/l at larger power stations was reported in 2013 [7], i.e. 0.47 USD/l or, at 3.45 kWh/l, 0.14 USD/kWh.

Off-grid electricity 1. There is a considerable number of isolated diesel sets (>100) in operation [4] that could be co-fuelled with biogas or producer gas. 2. There might be opportunities for small- or medium scale biogas or gasification systems in isolated grids.

Current off-grid diesel plants are listed in [6]. Most sets are in the range of 20-40 kW, with a number units of 100 kW. In most cases, average utilisation rates are in the 2000-3000 h/a (full load equivalent) range. Average fuel consumption is approx 3.45 kWh/l diesel2. Average production costs at low voltage level is 0.34 USD/kWh.

Diesel prices in isolated areas vary from location and season [7]. In East Sumba prices of 10-15 thousand RS/l (1-1.5 USD/l) are reported in dry season; in the wet season, prices can go up to 20-25 thousand RS/l (2-2.5 USD/l). In other regencies, with better infrastructure, prices range from 8-12 thousand RS/l (0.8-1.2 USD/l). Per-kWh fuel prices are thus in the range of 0.24-0.45 USD/kWh but they can be considerably higher where diesel sets are less efficient.

Biofuels There is considerable demand for liquid fuels (22,530 t/a biodiesel, ~30,000 t/a ethanol) [5]

1 This seems rather high – it would suggest that the diesels would always be running at optimum efficiency (around 35%). 2 Ibid. For these smaller diesel sets, 35% efficiency is very high to begin with.

2.2 Overview of applicable concepts Based on the above considerations, the following concepts might be in principle applicable on Sumba (see Table 2-1). The concepts marked grey are considered most promising.

Table 2-1 Overview of bioenergy concepts under consideration Feedstock Application Advantages Disadvantages Kemiri Small gasification Financially attractive Technology complexity shells, (isol grid / diesel replacement) Can be applied at smaller scales Investment level coconut Partial replacement of biodiesel shells, corn cobs Small gasification Complete replacement of biodiesel Technology complexity (+) (isol grid / single fuel) Investment level Requires better loading rates Large gasification Can be applied at smaller scales FS availability (grid / diesel replacement) Reduces biodiesel requirement FS logistics Partial replacement of biodiesel Large gasification Can make good hours FS availability, FS logistics (grid / single fuel) Financially attractive Might compete with other large supply options (e.g. hydro) Sugar cane Large combustion CHP Financially attractive (?) Not year-round bagasse (on-grid) Private funding Might compete with other large supply options (e.g. hydro) Animal Medium biogas Financially attractive FS availability dung (isol grid / diesel replacement) Low investment needs Low technology complexity Reduces biodiesel requirement Medium biogas Full replacement of biodiesel FS availability (isol grid / single fuel) Technology complexity Market Medium biogas Financially attractive FS availability waste, (isol grid / diesel replacement) Low investment needs FS logistics (market waste) hotel Low technology complexity kitchen Reduces biodiesel requirement waste MSW Medium biogas Might fit in waste management FS availability (isol grid / diesel replacement) schemes FS logistics – combination with Combination with recycling of waste management required plastics and metals Medium biogas Might fit in waste management FS availability (isol grid / single fuel) schemes FS logistics Combination with recycling of plastics and metals Addition to large biogas Might fit in waste management FS availability (grid connected) schemes FS logistics Combination with recycling of plastics and metals Compensates intermittent power

Cashew Small scale ethanol production Liquid fuel supply Investment level apple FS storage Economics doubtful Medium-scale ethanol Liquid fuel supply FS logistics production FS storage Combination with Molasses Increased ethanol production FS logistics ethanol production Also possible at smaller scales Fully dependent of sugar production Waste Veg Small scale biodiesel production Liquid fuel supply FS availability Oil Financially attractive (compared to other options) Combination with other oils for Increased biodiesel production FS availability biodiesel Also possible at smaller scale

2.3 Selection of concepts for further assessment The concepts described above were reviewed in a discussion between FACT and Hivos. The main conclusions of this discussion were the following:  For grid connected systems on Sumba, hydro and wind are the most attractive options, with which large-scale bioenergy options for (continuous) supply cannot compete. However, there might be opportunities for combining bioenergy with diesel-based backup systems, particularly in periods of drought when hydropower resources are limited. Particularly gasification could be an interesting option because of short startup period (i.e. in comparison to biogas).  Possible exception to the above is large scale electricity production with sugar cane bagasse, if cane sugar processing would start on Sumba. However, this will be seasonal; the extent of complementarity to hydropower should then be assessed.  For off-grid applications, biogas is especially interesting in combination with productive energy uses; for the time being, consumptive energy can be supplied with PV solar as is already being undertaken by PLN. Existing decentralised diesel sets could be an exception, although it is unclear what numbers of such systems are (still) operational.  Gasification is probably only feasible on a large scale (grid connected), because of the complexity of the technology and the related technical capacity of the plant operators. Scale will be dependent on supply possibilities of appropriate feedstocks (coconut shell, candlenut shell, corn cobs).  Cashew apple in technically interesting for the production of ethanol but its economics are highly unclear. Strongly seasonal availability and logistics are possible obstacles. Drying fruit, in order to facilitate transportation and storability should be assessed.  On the subject of biogas, SNV is working on small- and medium size applications on Sumba. It is currently unclear if there is expertise on i) the use of gas for electricity production; ii) the use of energy plants like Euphorbia Tirucalli; and iii) alternatives to fixed dome technology. In addition, there is an initiative of GSEP/RWE on wind/biogas hybrids but that should receive more focus.  Availability of animal dung, on small- and large scale, is hampered by prevailing animal husbandry methods and sudden sales of herds.  Availability of organic waste (domestic, hotels, restaurants) for energy production is uncertain but doubtful; possible from markets. Same holds for waste vegetable oil.

Bioenergy options that will be included in the further assessment are the following: 1. Gasification of coconut shells (and possibly candle nut shells and corn cobs). 2. Cashew apple for ethanol production. 3. Biogas on medium scale for co-fuelling off-grid diesels. 4. Assessing available organic waste streams, particularly domestic waste and waste vegetable oil. 5. Market waste for biogas.

In a later stage, assessing the opportunities of using bamboo for gasification were added; also, (potential) availability of cashew nut shell was identified as a possible energy resource.

Furthermore, during a HIVOS mission, the subject of rice processing and related production of rice husk came up. Contrary to earlier indications, there are large numbers of small- and medium size rice mills on Sumba, using diesel engines for their energy supply. It was therefore decided to include in the assessment the use of rice husk for gasification at the rice mills, specifically for meeting (part of) internal energy demand.

3 ASSESSMENT OF SELECTED ENERGY CONCEPTS

3.1 Coconut shell Coconut production takes place all over the island, but most concentrated production zones are found in West- and Southwest Sumba (see Figure 3-1). Table 3-1 gives an overview of the most important production areas, and their production (de-husked coconut).

Table 3-1 Coconut production areas Regency/Sub Regency Nut production (t/a) Distance to town (km) A. East Sumba Waingapu Pandawai 212 10-30 Umalulu 182 60 Karera 140 120 Wula Waijelu 157 120 Pahunga Lodu 176 100 Lewa Tidahu 193 80 B. Central Sumba Waibakul Umbu Ratu Nggay 83 20-40 C. West Sumba Waikabubak Lamboya 1,348 25 Laboya Barat 567 30 Wanokaka 501 20 D. South West Sumba Tambolaka Kodi 4,545 20-35 Kodi Bangedo 1,515 20-35 Kodi Utara 957 10-30

Coconut shells are particularly suitable as gasifier fuel, and could as such be used to reduce the diesel consumption in existing diesel generators to a degree of approx 80%. However, it is also possible to replace lower amount of diesel, i.e. to place a smaller gasifier next to an existing diesel is the coconut availability in the area is limited. The electricity production potential of the coconut shells using gasification is presented in Table 3-2.

Assumptions:  50% of shells can be collected, due to auto-consumption and logistical issues. Shell-to-nut ratio is 23% (0.23 kg of shell on 1kg of nut) [8].  Net calorific value (NCV) of shell is 17 MJ/kg [9]; conversion efficiency with gasification (fuel-to electricity) is 20%. Diesel replacement is calculated at 3.45 kWh/l.  Gasifier utilisation rate is 4000 h/a (full load equivalent).

Figure 3-1 Administrative map of Sumba

Table 3-2 Energy potential from coconut shell gasification Regency/Sub Regency Shell (t/a) Electr. potential Diesel equivalent P potential (MWh/a) (‘000 l/a) (kWe) A. East Sumba Pandawai 24 23 79 6 Umalulu 21 20 68 5 Karera 16 15 52 4 Wula Waijelu 18 17 59 4 Pahunga Lodu 20 19 66 5 Lewa Tidahu 22 21 72 5 B. Central Sumba Umbu Ratu Nggay 10 9 31 2 C. West Sumba Lamboya 155 146 505 37 Laboya Barat 65 62 212 15 Wanokaka 58 54 188 14 D. South West Sumba Kodi 523 494 1,703 123 Kodi Bangedo 174 165 568 41 Kodi Utara 110 104 359 26

Indications of transportation costs and, accessibility and distances tom main towns indicate that transport costs would be in the order of 2 USc/kWh (15-20 USD/t). As large amounts of shells are not used, the price for the biomass itself can be assumed to be limited; a price of 30 USD/t would add another 3 USc/kWh. Operational costs and capital costs (without generator) are estimated at 10-12 USc/kWh at 50 kW scale, bringing total production costs at 15-17

USc/kWh. At a smaller scale (25 kWe), operational costs and capital costs are in the order of 12-14 USc/kWh, bringing total costs at 17-19 USc/kWh.

Conclusions: there are considerable amounts of coconut shell that could either be used for gasification in grid-connected diesel sets or smaller systems feeding isolated grids, particularly in Southwest and West Sumba. Production costs are within the range of diesel costs of large systems, and considerably below diesel costs for small systems.

Actual opportunities depend on the proximity of isolated / grid connected systems, the power production scale, and the accessibility to and geographical spread of producers.

3.2 Candle nut shell Main candle nut production takes place in East and West Sumba. Table 3-3 gives an overview of the most important production areas. An overview of the electricity production potential of the shells using gasification3 is presented in Table 3-4.

Table 3-3 Candlenut production areas Regency/Sub Regency Production (t/a) A. East Sumba 1,664 Wula Waijelu 377 Paberi Wai 353 Nggaha Ori Angu 148 Katala Hamu Lingu 143 Kahaungu Eti 126 B. Central Sumba N/A Wee Luri, Ole Ate (Mamboro SD) C. West Sumba 1,568 Manukuku, Wee Patola, Bondotera, Wanokaza, Kareka Ndoku, Zalakadu (Tanarighu SD) D. South West Sumba 500 Lombu, Morokota, Wee Kombaka (Wewewa Barat SD), Bondo Uka, Tana Teke (Wewewa Selatan SD)

Table 3-4 Energy potential from candlenut shell gasification Regency/Sub Regency Shell (t/a) E potential Diesel equivalent P potential (MWhe/a) (l/a) (kWe) A. East Sumba 582 550 1,898 138 Wula Waijelu 132 125 455 31 Paberi Wai 124 117 426 29 Nggaha Ori Angu 52 49 179 12 Katala Hamu Lingu 50 47 173 12 Kahaungu Eti 44 42 152 10 B. Central Sumba N/A N/A N/A N/A C. West Sumba 549 518 1,893 130 D. South West Sumba 175 165 604 41

3 There is no reference found to experiences with the gasification of candlenut shells, which was confirmed by an Indian supplier of gasifiers [10]. If the logistics are deemed feasible, its technical suitability would have to be tested.

Assumptions:  50% of shells can be collected, due to auto-consumption and logistical issues. Shell-to-nut ratio is 70% (0.7 kg of shell on 1 kg of whole nut) [7].  Net calorific value (NCV) of shell is 17 MJ/kg; conversion efficiency with gasification (fuel- to electricity) is 20%. Diesel replacement is calculated at 3.45 kWh/l.  Gasifier utilisation rate is 4000 h/a (full load equivalent).

A little trade in candlenut shell was reported, at a price level of 300-500 RS/kg (30-50 USD/t) [7], which would amount to an average of some 4 USc/kWh. No indication of transport distances are available; based on the coconut shell costs, transport costs are estimated at 2-3 USc/kWh, bringing total biomass costs at 6-7 USc/kWh. With operational costs and capital costs (at 50 kW scale, without generator) at 10-12 USc/kWh, total production costs would be in the order of 16-19 USc/kWh. For smaller systems (25 kWe), total costs would be in the order of 18-21 USc/kWh.

Table 3-4 shows that there few sub-regencies with sufficient shell availability to sustain a small gasifier; for a larger gasifier, shells would have to be collected and transported from multiple sub-regencies which will increase costs. Such a small gasifier would then have to be combined with a smaller diesel plant as the lower diesel prices at the larger diesel plants make gasification at this scale unfeasible.

Conclusions: the opportunities for candlenut shells for gasification are limited. In East Sumba and possibly on West Sumba there might be a technical potential for small scale gasification. However, the economics are unclear at this point; this will depend on the actual price levels and transportation costs.

3.3 Corn cobs Corn is a staple food that is being produced by households all over Sumba. Total produced quantities are considerable – see Table 3-5 below. The cobs can be used as a gasifier fuel.

Table 3-5 Corn and corn cob production, and energy potential from corn cob gasification Regency/Sub Regency Corn Cob production Electricity Diesel equivalent Production (t/a) (t/a) (MWh/a) (‘000 l/a) A. East Sumba 30,009 15,005 10,003 34,510 Nggaha Ori Angu 5,108 2,554 1,703 5,874 Pandawai 2,307 1,154 769 2,653 B. Central Sumba 10,107 5,054 3,369 11,623 Umbu Ratu Nggay Barat 3,114 1,557 1,038 3,581 Katiku Tana Selatan 1,997 999 666 2,297 C. West Sumba 10,018 5,009 3,339 11,521 Tanarighu 4,942 2,471 1,647 5,683 D. South West Sumba 58,560 29,280 19,520 67,344 Wewewa Barat 14,187 7,094 4,729 16,315 Kodi Utara 13,770 6,885 4,590 15,836 Wewewa Timur 13,356 6,678 4,452 15,359 Wewewa Selatan 12,967 6,484 4,322 14,912 Kodi Bangedo 12,542 6,271 4,181 14,423

Assumptions:  25% of cobs can be collected, due to logistical issues and seasonal availability.  Cob-to-corn ratio is 200% (2 kg of cob on 1 kg of corn) [7].  Cob-to electricity rate is 1.5 kg/kWh [11].

The electricity production potential of the cobs is large: in the shown sub districts, electricity production would range from about 600 MWh/a in Katiku Tana Selatan on Central Sumba, to more than 4,000 MWh/a in each of the shown sub-districts in South West Sumba. The total electricity production potential is equal to the island’s electricity production in 2010.

The cobs have little alternative use but corn hulling is done exclusively on a household level, which makes collection a complicated and expensive task. Cobs have a low bulk density (about one-third of that of coconut shells [12]) so storage would be expensive; there would have to be a very frequent collection of cobs in order to guarantee continuous fuel supply. Although the cobs are produced year-around (with lower amounts in the period November-January) [7], this frequent collection will add to the costs.

Nevertheless, the abundant availability of this resource, in combination with the relatively low amounts that are needed for one gasifier (in the order of 500 t/a for a 100kW system), could indicate that sufficient biomass could be collected in a limited area. It might be interesting to investigate the possibilities of setting up a collection system, and what the eventual biomass costs would be.

3.4 Rice husk Rice is the main food crop in Sumba. Production figures are as follows:  East Sumba (Lewa, Pahunga): 43,062 tonnes in 2011  Central Sumba (Anakalang): 34,301 tonnes in 2008  South West Sumba (Waikelo Sawah, Kodi): 12,182 tonnes in 2010

Harvesting season for rain fed rice is in the period April-July; a (smaller) second harvest of irrigates rice is in September-November.

Rice mills are found in all rice producing areas, particularly in East Sumba (100 mills, of which 44 in Lewa sub district) and Southwest Sumba (50 mills). Smaller numbers are found in West Sumba (12 mills) and Central Sumba (10 mills). Rice mill capacity varies from small mills, producing some 0.5 t/h of dehulled rice, to larger mills producing some 1.5 t/h of dehulled rice. As byproducts, the mills produce rice husk and flour (mixtures of husk and fines) in an average ratio of 65 : 20 : 15 (dehulled rice : husk : flour). The flour is sold as animal feed; husk has no financial value, it is sometimes collected by farmers who use it as fertiliser (composted or burned) but often mill owners have difficulties getting rid of it.

All rice mills use diesel engines to run their mills, even if they are situated near the national grid (grid power for industrial consumers is expensive). Engine capacities range from approx. 20 to 50 kW. Diesel consumption that was collected showed diesel consumption of 2.3 to 2.8 litres per tonne of dehulled rice, for large and small mills respectively. However, these data do not correspond to fuel consumption indications found elsewhere (e.g. India, Cambodia, Uganda, Burkina Faso [13], [14], [15], [16]) that typically range from 15-25 litres per tonne of dehulled rice. Also, the consumption data fit badly with the indicated mill engine capacities: diesel consumption figures would implicate that engines run at less than 10% of their rated

12 power. The collected consumption figures were verified; there is of yet no explanation for the difference.

Rice husk gasification is a common practice in rice industries in many parts in Asia. The producer gas can be used in (existing) diesel engines, reducing upto about 70% of the diesel consumption (engine power is derated with some 20%). Note that there is usually rice husk in excess, so alternative supply options are imaginable, e.g. supplying to (mini) grids from the same rice mill or using husk for producing electricity elsewhere. In general however, captive power production at rice mills is the most economic application so the analysis will initially be limited to that application.

Table 3-6 below shows the different gasifier cases: small and large mills, and using diesel consumption data collected from Sumba rice mills and consumption data from other sources.

Table 3-6 Rice husk gasification cases Parameter unit Small mill Large mill Small mill Large mill (Sumba (Sumba (Int’l data) (Int’l data) data) data) Production capacity t/h 0,48 1,20 0,48 1,20 Production (high season) t/m 50 300 50 300 Production (low season) t/m 25 150 25 150 Production t/a 400 2,400 400 2,400 diesel consumption l/t 2,8 2,3 20 15 diesel consumption l/m 140 700 1,000 4,500 diesel consumption l/a 1,120 5,600 8,000 36,000 Diesel price USD/l 0.49 0.49 0.49 0.49 Fuel cost USD/a 545 2,726 3,894 17,522 Diesel replacement % 70% 70% 70% 70% Annual fuel saving l/a 784 3920 5600 25200 Annual fuel saving USD/a 382 1908 2726 12265 Engine power kW 22 50 22 50 Gasifier capacity kW 10 20 15 30 Investment cost USD 12,000 24,000 18,000 36,000 O&M (10% of investments) USD/a 1,200 2,400 1,800 3,600 Payback period years N/A N/A 19.4 4.2

The analyses show that on the basis of the diesel consumption data collected on Sumba, gasification is not feasible in either small or large rice mills. On the basis of international consumption data, gasification could be feasible in larger rice mills only, albeit with a considerable payback period (>4 years). This is mainly due to the relatively low diesel price: in countries where diesel is costlier, the conditions for gasification are more favourable (payback periods of 2-3 years).

Concluding: rice husk gasification is an option that could reduce considerable amounts of fossil diesel in the rice processing industry, but verification of its feasibility will require further assessment.

3.5 Cashew waste

3.5.1 Cashew apple Cashew production is most notable on Southwest Sumba, and to a lesser extent on East Sumba although there the production centres are remote. Assuming that 50% of all apples could be collected, some 11.6 thousand tonnes of apple could be collected in the four main production centres on Southwest Sumba. Ethanol production potential of this quantity would be nearly 400 thousand litres of ethanol per year.

Cashew apples are produced during a period of at most four months, and they are very perishable. This means that ethanol production units could operate only for four months per year, unless fruits or intermediate products could be stored. Furthermore, the high water content of the fruit (approx 88%) result in high transportation costs.

One possible solution that was thought of was drying of the apple, which would allow storage and more efficient transportation. However, based on experiences with small scale solar drying in Uganda [17] result in drying costs in the order of 20 USc/kg fresh apple; at 33 l/t fresh apple, the drying costs would be about 6 US$ per litre of ethanol.

As an alternative, small scale production could be initiated near the producers. Surprisingly a 500 l/d operated for only 120 d/a unit would result in a capital component of some 10 USc/l. Operational costs would be in the order of 25 USc/l. However, the feedstock costs will be considerable in any case. Transportation costs will most likely be in excess of 10 USD/t, which would add 33 USc/l. Total production costs will then be in the order of 68 USc/l. But it would be likely that farmers will demand a certain price for collecting the apples, as these are now mostly left in the field.

Comparing the minimum ethanol production costs with its value as engine fuel shows the following. Gasoline prices in the larger towns are 4500 Rs/l [18], which is some 14.1 US$/MJ. The equivalent energy price in terms of anhydrous ethanol would set the maximum price of ethanol a some 30 USc/l, i.e. less than half the minimum production costs. It is therefore unlikely that ethanol production from cashew apple can be made feasible.

3.5.2 Cashew shell There is currently no processing of cashew nuts done on any significant scale on Sumba, so there is currently no cashew shell waste available. Nevertheless, the shell represents some 75% of the weight of the nut [19]; of the total cashew nut production on Sumba of some 9,000 t/a, about 6,800 t/a consists of shells. The electricity production potential of this biomass would be some 6,800 MWh/a.

It might be interesting for future reference if there are opportunities for initiating cashew processing on Sumba. It could add value to the production chain and produce (centrally) a biomass resource that could be used for powering the processing facility itself, but also possibly generate sufficient additional biomass for on-grid or off-grid electricity production.

3.6 Biogas in existing small diesel engines The earlier reported distribution of small diesel sets for village electrification was verified: The Department of Mine and Energy supported the installation of 120 sets on Eastern Sumba, and

8 on Southwest Sumba. Information of diesel sets in Central and West Sumba is not available. Continuation of these efforts are not foreseen, as more emphasis is placed on reaching households with solar energy.

According to recent monitoring, on East Sumba there are 8 diesel sets working correctly. These sets have capacities in the range of 3-5 kVA, supplying electricity to groups of 20-35 households. The sets are operated for some 3-4 hours, which would lead to diesel consumption in the order of 3-5 litres per day. Diesel consumption reductions of 60% are practically obtainable by supplying biogas to the air inlet of the generators. At a replacement rate of 0.4 litres of diesel per m3 of gas, this 60% would require approx 4 to 7 m3 of gas for the smaller and the larger sets, respectively. These amounts could be produced with digesters of 20-30 m3 volume, being fed with the dung of 12-18 heads of cattle. 4 villages running gensets in Eastern Sumba were visited; in each village, there were cattle and pigs present (at least 5, in some villages 10 or more). Alternatively, energy plants could be added in order to increase gas production.

Table 3-7 Biogas in small scale diesel generators Item Unit System 1 System 2 Genset capacity kVA 3 5 Daily operating hours h/d 4 4 Daily electricity production kWh/d 7.2 12 Estimated diesel consumption l/d 2.9 4.8 Biogas required for 60% subst. m3/d 4.3 7.2 Dung required kg/d 123 206 Digester volume m3 17 28

Investments in a 30m3 digester are estimated at 2,500 USD; at a diesel price of 1 USD/l, such an installation would be repaid in 3-4 years assuming that dung can be traded with digested slurry.

3.7 Waste vegetable oil Initial enquiries on the availability of waste vegetable oil in hotels and restaurants have not resulted in any indication of the potential. Apparently the larger hotels do not serve lunch or dinner; tourists leave for smaller restaurants for these meals. If there is any potential, it will need to be collected from these smaller restaurants.

3.8 Urban waste Municipal Solid Waste (MSW) is collected and removed from four main urban areas in Sumba: Waingapu, Waibakul, Waikabubak and Tambolaka. The waste composition differs somewhat between the regencies, but it is estimated to consist of 60-75% organic material (the lower range being on East Sumba). The estimated daily amounts are shown in Table 3-8 below.

The responsibility for waste management differs between regencies. On East and Southwest Sumba, waste collection is handled by the Cleanliness Unit of Public Works Department. Board of Environment also has role on the operational policy of waste management. In Central and West Sumba, the responsibility leis with the Board of Environment. In all regencies, these institutions have field workers like sweeper teams and drivers.

Table 3-8 MSW Production Urban centre Number of households Estimated daily MSW (m3/d) Waingapu (East) 13,164 163 Kota Waingapu 7,398 87 Kambera 5,766 76 Waibakul (Central) 2,123 22 * Waikabubak (West) 6,813 72 Tambolaka (Southwest) 7,063 75 * * based on per-household amounts of other urban centres

An estimate of the biogas production potential of these amounts of municipal waste is presented in Table 3-9 below:

Table 3-9 Biogas and electricity production potential from MSW Urban centre MSW Biogas potential Electricity prod Power potential available (t/d) (m3/d) potential (kWh/d) (kW) Waingapu (East) 40.8 3,260 4,890 446 Kota Waingapu 21.8 1,740 2,610 238 Kambera 19.0 1,520 2,280 208 Waibakul (Central) 5.6 449 673 61 Waikabubak (West) 18.0 1,440 2,160 197 Tambolaka (Southwest) 18.7 1,493 2,239 204 * based on per-household amounts of other urban centres

Assumptions:  MSW density (uncompacted): 250 kg/m3 [20].  Biogas yield: 80 m3/t of unsorted MSW [21].  Biogas utilisation rate is 4000 h/a (full load equivalent).

There seem to be considerable technical potentials for the production of biogas from Municipal waste in most towns. The organic part of the waste would have to be separated from the rest (or collected separately) – this in itself could add value to the waste in the form of scrap metal and glass recovery. The organic part can then be used for biogas production, and the digested residue used as organic fertiliser.

In this sense there is already an interesting initiative ongoing: at the Dedekadu disposal site near Waikabubak (West Sumba) there is already production of organic fertiliser from the organic part of MSW, albeit on a small scale (some 50 kg/d – only a tiny fraction of what is available according to the collected figures). It might be possible to add an anaerobic digestion step to the process, which would lead to a higher added value. The main hurdle would be the possibility to transport the electricity from the site to the consumers.

3.9 Market waste There are dozens of weekly village markets all over Sumba but there are only few that are large enough to be considered for their waste: paranggang Melolo and paranggang Lewa on East Sumba, and Pasar Elopada and Pasar Waimangura on Southwest Sumba. The market waste is estimated to contain at least 75% organic matter.

Indications of amounts are in the order of 6-12m3 (1.5-3) tonnes per week per market. The average daily biogas production from such amounts would be 17-34 m3/d (25-50 kWh/d). This energy potential is negligible in the wider context but it might be possible to combine small scale biogas / organic fertiliser with a decentralised diesel electricity system (village or isolated grid). The feasibility of this will depend primarily on the distance between the market and the nearest diesel power system.

Daily urban markets are found in all towns (see Table 3-8) but the waste collection from these markets is integrated with the MSW management system.

3.10 Bamboo Bamboo is a fast-growing grass species that can be used as an energy crop, e.g. as a biomass fuel for gasification. Its suitability was confirmed by a leading gasifier system supplier from India. Bamboo grows all over Sumba (see Table 3-10); it is purposely planted by communities and used for construction material and for a variety of other applications.

Table 3-10 Main bamboo production areas Region Main production areas East Sumba Lambanapu, Makamenggitu, Wai Wei, Watumbelar, Waijelu, Waikanabu, Tabundung Central Sumba Malinjak/Wailawa, Lawonda, Mamboro West Sumba Karekandoku, Bondotera, Lingu Lango, Malata, Zalakadu, Rajaka, Kalembu Kuni, Baliledo, Prai Bakul South West Sumba Wewewa Barat, Wewewa Timur, Kodi Bangedo

Current price levels of bamboo are only known for bamboo as construction material, which is differentiated by size rather than weight. The price level per tonne of fuel bamboo, and its transportation costs, will need to be confirmed. In order to be competitive with diesel, the bamboo would have to be supplied at the power station gate at the right specifications at maximum price levels of 19 USD/t or 94 USD/t at large and small power plants, respectively.

4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Conclusions From the analyses in the previous chapters, the following can be concluded:

1. Coconut shell: there are sufficient quantities of coconut shell for small- and medium scale gasification in several sub regencies on Southwest and West Sumba. First indications of costs are comparable to diesel costs for large systems, and more favourable for small systems. The logistical issues and costs would have to be assessed.

2. Candle nut shell: in some sub regencies, the amounts of candlenut shell could sustain a small scale gasifier. First indications of costs are comparable to diesel costs for large systems, and more favourable for small systems. The logistical issues and costs would have to be assessed.

3. Corn cobs: large amounts of corn cob are available, more-or-less throughout the year. No costs indication is available but seen the abundant availability there may be an opportunity for small and/or large scale gasification. It is unclear whether the logistical costs are controllable.

4. Rice husk: larger rice mills on Sumba could significantly reduce their diesel consumption by gasification of part of their rice husk. However, feasibility remains to be verified as diesel consumption data contradicts figures found elsewhere.

5. Cashew apple: fuel ethanol production form cashew apple is unlikely to be competitive to gasoline.

6. Cashew shell: there is currently no processing of cashew nuts on Sumba; if this would be initiated, the resulting shells would form an interesting resource.

7. Biogas in existing small diesel engines: there are not many small off-grid diesels operational, and there are indications that small diesels for electrification will be replaced by PV based electrification. However, for those diesel sets that work, biogas might be a feasible means of reducing diesel costs.

8. Waste vegetable oil: there are no indications that there are any significant amounts of waste vegetable oils available.

9. Urban waste: There is a considerable technical potential for biogas from MSW. The main question is whether the disposal sites can be linked to the energy production locations. There is an interesting lead in the form of an existing MSW-to-organic fertiliser production initiative on the Dedekadu disposal site near Waikabubak.

10. Market waste: the potential for using market waste for biogas is small; there might be incidental opportunities for using the waste of specific markets for nearby small decentral diesel sets.

11. Bamboo: the suitability of bamboo as a gasifier fuel is confirmed, and there is bamboo growing all over Sumba. Production cost estimates would need to confirm the competitiveness.

4.2 Recommendations Options that are recommended for further assessment are the following:  Gasification of coconut shell – particularly in Southwest and West Sumba.  Gasification of corn cobs – particularly in Southwest Sumba.  Gasification of rice husk – particularly in East Sumba (Lewa sub district)  Biogas from the organic fraction of municipal waste - specifically on West Sumba, at Dedekadu disposal site near Waikabubak.

Options that could be pursued in a later stage include the following:  Gasification of candlenut shells.  Biogas in small diesel sets.  Biogas from market waste (other than that already collected along with municipal waste).  Gasification of bamboo.

Options that are not recommended for further assessment are ethanol from cashew apple and waste vegetable oil. Gasification of cashew shells could be considered but it would have to be assessed within the context of building cashew processing capacity on Sumba.

References

[1] Plants for Power (J Vel / R. Nugrohowardhani) (April 2012) [2] Feasibility of Biogas in Sumba (S. Bajgain) (February 2011) [3] Sumba Iconic Island Project: Scoping Mission on Off-grid Electrification (E&D, February 2011) [4] Sumba all renewable iconic island study: grid connected electricity generation (KEMA, April 2011) [5] Fuel independent RE “Iconic Island” (Winrock International, august 2010) [6] Baseline report Fuel Independent Renewable Energy “Iconic Island” Sumba (Winrock International, 2011) [7] Pandanga, P (2013) Report of extended desk study [8] Raghavan, K. (2010) Biofuel from coconut. FACT Foundation, The Netherlands. http://www.fact-foundation.com/media_en/Coconut_Handbook_(first_version) [9] http://www.ecn.nl/phyllis2/Browse/Standard/ECN-Phyllis [10] Ankur (2013) Personal communication [11]FACT Foundation (2009) Fact finding mission on gasification in Cambodia - internal report. [12] Zhang Y. et al (2012) Physical properties of corn residues. In: American Journal of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, 2012, 8(2), 44-53 [13] GRS Commodities (2013) Personal Communication [14] SNV (2013) Personal communication [15] http://cdm.unfccc.int/methodologies/standard_base/cam_data.xlsx [16] JP Yadav, J.P. and Singh, B.R (2011) Study on Comparison of Boiler Efficiency Using Husk and Coal as Fuel in Rice Mill. [17] FAO (2012) Dryer construction for solar-dried fruit and vegetables production. http://teca.fao.org/read/4502 [18] Pandanga, P. (2013) Personal communication [19] Azam-Ali, s.H. and Judge E.C. (2004) Small-scale cashew nut processing. http://www.fao.org/inpho_archive/content/documents/vlibrary/ac306e/ac306e00.htm#Table %20of%20Contents [20] EPA (2013) Standard Volume-to-Weight Conversion Factors. http://www.epa.gov/osw/conserve/tools/recmeas/docs/guide_b.pdf [21] Elango D. et al (2006) Production of biogas from municipal solid waste with domestic sewage. http://www.aseanenvironment.info/abstract/41014894.pdf

Annex A: Report of Local Consultant

Hivos Regional Office Southeast Asia Contact person: Sandra Winarsa, Programme Officer Sustainable Energy Jl. Kemang Selatan XII/No 1 | Jakarta Selatan 12560 | Indonesia T +62 21 78837577 or 7892489 ext 138 E [email protected]

Hivos Head Office Contact person: Eco Matser, Climate Change, Energy & Development co-ordinator Raamweg 16 | 2596 HL Den Haag | The Netherlands T + 31(0)70 376 55 00 E [email protected]